Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Sep 30, 2009 4:30pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them

"some say ..."? Who are the "some"?

Merely pointing a camera at a film print, or scanning it, doesn't result in a creative new work. The result is merely a file filled with computer typographic characters that appear arbitrary to a human being.

Anyone who believes that restoration is copyrightable should also carefully read the court decisions and the text of the law. Merely putting something back the way it was before (which is restoration in its literal meaning) does not result in a new work and is not creative. There is no reason under such circumstances for copyright to last beyond what the original copy did. Where you know of a "restored" work which is entitled to a new copyright, fid out if the "restored" work has something new, such as a new musical soundtrack, a new introduction, or changes in editing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Sep 30, 2009 10:41pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them

There is very good argument that "restoration" on any level is not covered by copyright under US law. Where other countries have avenues for a "Sweat of the brow" basis for copyright claim, the US doesn't. The so called "creative" decisions made by film restorers are largely technical, especially in digital restoration, and are not strictly "creative" or transformative enough to warrant new copyright coverage.

Usually in countries where "sweat of the brow" is accepted as a copyright basis, the work is not given a new full term copyright. Rather, it is given a short term commensurate to a printed edition- often the minimum copyright term of 25 years.

You are right, only very transformative restorations (particularly silent films with new cards, scores, scenes that weren't in original releases) have valid claims to any kind of protection.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-10-01 05:41:37

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: yofitofu Date: Nov 28, 2009 12:48am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them

I found a new site springing up which offers some very old and very rare silent era cartoons which are mostly in the PD - www.cartoonsonfilm.com. What I find concerning, however, is the fine print section of the website

http://cartoonsonfilm.com/disclaimer.html

Here, the "collector" of these cartoons, Tom Stathe, seems to be saying that he has some "ownership" of the materials by virtue of having "restored" them, which seems to mean he has transferred them to DVD, maybe cleaned them up a bit, perhaps added music?

Do you think this is a legitimate claim of ownership in the works in question? He has not changed the films content to any degree I can see. And how to really determine this if the "owner" is probably unwilling to show off the originals?

I understand the desire to protect one's own business interests and thwart competition, but where is the line drawn on what is a"restoration" and what is not?

Of slightly more concern is the fact that, according to the Film Superlist 1894-1939, quite a few of the titles he is offering did have their copyrights renewed.

This aside, does anyone think this is a legitimate claim of ownership?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Nov 28, 2009 1:19am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them

Even if the restoration includes new tinting, title cards, score and any other new copyright worthy element the original underlying public domain footage is not the subject of the new copyright simply because it is included in the "restoration." Restoration (photochemical or digital) of film footage is not work protected by copyright, only "new" creative work can be copyright and restoration is not sufficiently creative. It is seen as being in the same class as making a photocopy. You are attempting to make a best quality facsimile of the original work not a new derivative work.

So, even if these DVDs contain new elements, there is nothing in copyright law that stops anyone from removing and using the original footage as long as they don't use any of the new copyrightable elements added by the restorer.

Nice how they "will not stop other video outlets from releasing alternate restorations made from verifiably different source elements" as if they would have any right to in the first place.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2009-11-28 09:19:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Oct 1, 2009 2:16am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Those watermarks - where video sources are defaced by them

In reading my comment above, realize that "fid out if the 'restored' work has something new" should be: "find out if the 'restored' work has something new".

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)